Joan Goes Over The Top!

OK She is just totally nuts!

What we need in our country is a serious national discussion about the role of guns and gun violence in our communities- not the insanity taking place in communities across America. Why is it happening? The answer is important. What or who are these guys afraid of? Their behavior makes no sense given that crime is going down in our country for many reasons. And President Obama has not taken away anyone’s guns during his two terms. The gun lobby has made claims about why we need an armed America but they are specious- not supported by the facts.

On the other hand gun deaths are going up for many reasons. And most of the deaths are suicides or homicides among people who know each other rather than random acts of violence by “the (feared) other”. People like themselves ( “good guys with guns”) are shooting people on a regular basis intentionally or not (accidents). Shouldn’t we examine what is going on here and then deal with this national public health epidemic in ways that will affect lives and make us safer?

Go ahead and read those two paragraphs again. Seriously, I’m amazed that Joan didn’t email me PERSONALLY when she wrote this post just to make sure I didn’t miss it.

So first up, YES CRIME IS GOING DOWN IN AMERICA!!! The only people denying this are anti-gun people. We have been shouting it from the Rooftops.

Now her whole “Their behavior makes no sense given that crime is going down in our country for many reasons.” statement would actually make sense if “On the other hand gun deaths are going up for many reasons.” was true. But from that very article:

Car crashes killed 33,561 people in 2012, the most recent year for which data is available, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Firearms killed 32,251 people in the United States in 2011, the most recent year for which the Centers for Disease Control has data.

But this year gun deaths are expected to surpass car deaths.

32,000 “Gun Deaths” where have we heard that number before???? Oh yeah, it is the rock-solid consistent number of “Gun Deaths” in America for as long as I’ve been paying attention.

Please note that every year the US population goes up, so the rate of “Gun Death” is actually going down while the raw number is simply staying the same. The article Joan is citing is stating that AUTO deaths are going down, so if “Gun Death” stays the same, eventually they’ll cross.

Of course this has NOTHING to do with guns, and actually nothing to do with cars. people aren’t driving as much, so they aren’t getting in accidents.

Joan simply didn’t understand it, or was in such a froth to find ANYTHING that supported her factually wrong world view that she clouded her own vision to read something that wasn’t there.

Also note that Joan’s Prattling of “And most of the deaths are suicides or homicides among people who know each other rather than random acts of violence” is an attempt to make “People like themselves ( “good guys with guns”) are shooting people on a regular basis intentionally or not (accidents).” which is straight-up libelous. Yep, most of “Gun Deaths” are suicides. Antis say they use this number because if we banned guns we’d have less suicide. Except that the United States has a slightly better than above-average suicide rate….and many of the lowest ranking countries claim they have NO SUICIDE, which means they are lying. So the best statement the antis can make about suicide and guns in the United States is “America Doesn’t have a suicide problem, but we do have a suicide by gun problem…if you care about such things.” Also note that the “People who know each other” is simply pointing out that totally random acts of violence, like Spree killers (that Joan disproportionately references) are VERY rare, and in fact violent crime tends to be local stuff. Joan implies that “Gun Death” comes from gunnies like me getting angry and shooting my wife…or shooting her as she comes back from the bathroom at midnight, when it simply means that gangs (who know each other) shoot each other. Drug dealers kill clients who don’t pay up. Stalkers kills their victims, ect.

Please pause now to note that if Violent crime is DOWN, and “Gun Death” is the SAME, the RATE of “Gun Death” is going down, all while we now have 50 states of Concealed carry, record issuance of carry permits, and several years of VERY high gun sales.

This is why the pro-gun side has been pointing this out so rampantly. If gun ownership is up, Regulation of gun ownership is down, number of people owning and carrying guns is up, and violent crime is DOWN, then guns CANNOT be causing crime. Gun Control logically CANNOT WORK! Correlation does not mean causation, so I can’t positively say, as John Lott did “More Guns, Less Crime”, but you do need correlation to show causation, so “More guns, More Crime” MUST be false.

Joan does not understand this, among others reasons is because she doesn’t want to understand this.

Moving on:

In America I thought we rolled up our sleeves and worked together on things that kill our children, sisters, brothers and friends. Why? Because we don’t want our loved ones dying from something preventable.

Gun ownership is up, gun laws are down, crime is down! Joan suddenly sounds REALLY ironic, doesn’t she?

Recent changes to our acceptance of same sex couples have led to changes in our marriage laws to allow people to marry who they love.

Also Ironic, given all the public awareness campaign by Texans about Open carry, now Open carry is legal in Texas. Of course also Concealed carry is legal in all 50 states, and my home State of Maine will soon join the growing ranks of states that see no need in requiring a permit for carry.

What’s the difference between pro-gun causes and anti-gun ones? People LIKE us!

Something interesting is happening with awareness about gun deaths and injuries, much of which changed after the shooting of 20 small children at Sandy Hook elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut.

You mean a random act of violence that you say is so rare it should be ignored?

The public is far more engaged on this issue and new polling has shown continued and mostly unchanged support for changes in laws that could save lives. With more groups and organizations pushing for change, it is inevitable that change will happen. But there’s an opposite push by a minority of well funded and increasingly bold gun extremists that makes no sense given the facts. Rather than trying to prevent gun injuries and deaths by highlighting the risks of guns, these zealots are exposing America to an underbelly of extremism that is potentially dangerous and certainly not in the mainstream or the interest of public health and safety.

Heh, the Antis LOVE this. “We are so popular! But the pro-gun people are a minority but VERY well funded!” Oddly what Joan claims is statistically impossible! You can’t simply BUY a politician. You can sway them with money, because money helps elections, but it only goes so far. Hell look at Mitt Romney or Ross Perot. If Joan was correct, both of these men would be president. Let’s not forget that Michael Bloomberg is the living face of Gun Control, and all he managed to do is get some unenforceable laws passed in two states that are sadly infested with “Progressives” who are just as stupid as Joan.

Another fun example is go find a bed-wetting “Progressive” who constantly bitches about the Koch Brothers buying elections, and ask THEM what their price in cash would be to vote for Jeb Bush, or Ted Cruz…or hell Chris Christy!

Funny, if such and such were buying elections, how come we can’t seem to find a selling point?

Nope, this little scenario is A LIE! A Bluff! ALL IN JOAN! SHOW US YOUR FUCKING CARDS!!!

Meanwhile things are getting crazier and crazier in gun world. What is the deal with the open carry activists anyway? They are pretty much making fools of themselves while also calling attention to the potential dangerous result of laws that have made it possible for gun extremists to carry any kind of gun they want to carry in public places. Our legislators should be re-thinking their favoring of the corporate gun lobby’s nonsensical notion that openly ( or concealed) carrying loaded guns in public places is a good idea. The “proof is in the pudding”.

Texas just got Open carry. You know why Joan hates it so much? IT WORKS!!! Hey, I’m not a big fan of this flashy, political open carry….but the proof IS in the pudding, those open carry activists stomped the monkey-shit out of Bloomberg’s deep pockets in the political arena. Hard to argue that.

As I said before, we need a serious national discussion that is beginning to happen in spite of efforts to stop it ( by the corporate gun lobby).

Who’s shutting down the discussion? When have you EVER seen Joan attempting to talk with somebody who doesn’t agree with her? How often do you see that on the other side?

Of course you’ve seen the lies Joan spun in this post, so you wonder why she might not want to talk any place where hard questions might be asked.

This entry was posted in Freedom, Guns, Politics, Safety. Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to Joan Goes Over The Top!

  1. George says:

    “Conversation” is Joan’s code words for top-down propaganda. “We need to have a conversation” means “why aren’t you people listening to me????”

    • Weerd Beard says:

      They could give a shit if we LISTEN! Joan KNOWS that we’re reading her blog, and every time she is at a capitol, be it Minnesota or DC, that the people around her are outnumbered by gunnies 100-1.

      We’re LISTENING all right, what she doesn’t like is A) We are not OBEYING her commands, and B) We have RESPONSES that we expect to be listened to.

      Just look at the comment section on that. Mouth open, Mind Closed.

  2. Pingback: Joan Goes Over The Top! | Freedom Is Just Another Word…

  3. The_Jack says:

    There’s also the insanity of blaming everything on the “corporate gun lobby”.

    Why on earth would the “corporate gun lobby” fight Private Sale bans? Federal law already means that every single new gun the “corporate gun lobby” sells *has* to go through a background check.

    The only guns that federal law doesn’t cover are trades in *used* guns. That is a competing market segment to the “corporate gun lobby”

    This is like saying Electronic Arts is fighting and lobbying to make it easier for people to buy used games than it is to buy their new games.

    But really, I read Joan’s words especially the constant refrain of “But it doesn’t make sense!”/”Change is just around the corner!” of her groping with the failure of those stupid proles and those glad-handing politicians to go along with her.

    While Joan can’t comprehend *why* things aren’t going the way she wants them, she can see that things aren’t going her way. This is a prime example of the weakness of the Anti’s “Red Team thinking”.

    They can’t comprehend the frame of reference and views and tactics of their rivals and thus are left in a lurch when their opposition refuses to play along. One thing I’ve noticed is that what gets the antis more angry is not exactly disagreement with them (though they do *hate* that), but what really gets their dander up is when you refuse to argue in the way they want.

  4. Will Brown says:

    Minor quibble; there seems to be a growing body of evidence that crime reporting is what is going down – sometimes for some pretty serious crimes (see Colin Flaherty’s series of books for a host of references covering the last several years as an easy starting point). It’s not clear to me just how that affects “gun crime” statistics, but it does raise an interesting question about the claims we gun owners are prone to making about the societal benefits resulting from open carry or gun ownership more generally. We ought to take a more critical look at the reliability of our own claims at the same time we are fact-checking the anti’s proclamations, don’t you agree?

  5. Bob S. says:

    I wonder what Joan calls what has been going on for the last 20 or 30 years if not serious national discussion?

    The problem is we’ve had the discussion and to steal President Obama’s phrase; we won, get over it.
    Not only have we had the discussion but the evidence suggest what our side views as a solution is at least NOT contributing to the problem and is possible part of that reduction of crime. But Joan; just because crime is going down overall doesn’t lessen the impact of a crime event on a person or family. People still need to be able to defend themselves. So instead of trying to make people defenseless; why don’t you focus on trying to stop more criminals?

    We had the conversation here in Texas — the Open Carry Activism guaranteed at least that much. And again, guess what Joan? At the end of that discussion the pro-rights side won. Not as much as we wanted – still licensed Open Carry but hey, next time.
    We also got Campus Carry (goes into effect in Sept 2016 for major colleges and 2017 for junior) — again the antis had loud volumes of talk against it.

    So exactly Joan what conversation haven’t we been having?

    Bob S.

  6. Archer says:

    “[M]ost of the deaths are suicides or homicides among people who know each other rather than random acts of violence by ‘the (feared) other’.”

    Now she’s conflating “domestic violence” with gangbanger shootings. By using the “people who know each other”, she’s creating imagery of intrafamilial disputes turning violent and deadly due to the presence of guns.

    The reality is that gangbangers — even (or perhaps especially) — from rival gangs know each other. They are very aware of who their “street opposition” is and where to find them. There’s truth in the old adage, “Keep your friends close and your enemies closer.” Gang-related shootings are more like targeted assassination attempts than “random acts of violence”.

    Of course, Joan knows all this, but she’s intentionally using vague language to impart a false image of “gun violence”. It’s a misdirection, which is just another way to lie.

  7. TS says:

    Weerd: “Another fun example is go find a bed-wetting “Progressive” who constantly bitches about the Koch Brothers buying elections, and ask THEM what their price in cash would be to vote for Jeb Bush, or Ted Cruz…or hell Chris Christy!”

    Well, I’d have a price. And it wouldn’t exorbitantly high either. A couple grand and I’d probably even vote for bloomberg. Of course, to get to sleep at night, I’d have to put all that money into new guns- something I wouldn’t ordinarily buy.

    Aside from that, I like to tell liberals that the best way to keep corporate money out of politics is to take away government power over corporations.

  8. Mike W. says:

    Wow dude, I’m surprised Joan is still blogging. Seems like eons ago I 1st found her site

  9. Cargosquid says:

    Apparently I can still comment there. Who knew?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *